Wired Magazine editor, Chris Anderson, recently published an article on his blog, The Long Tail, suggesting that, much as spare CPU cycles drive projects like SETI, human “spare cycle” are powering the open source movement and Web 2.0. It’s a really nice metaphor, the problem is, for large open source projects anyway, it isn’t true.

"I was at a conference when two techies walked into the open bar, one an open source supporter and one staunchly anti. They got into it a bit after a few drinks, and Mr. Anti commented loudly, “I wish open source would just go away! It causes more trouble than it's worth.”"

"I'm submitting 'Supporting Open Source While Opposing Copyright' as a response to Greg Bulmash's piece from yesterday. I think there were a number of flaws and mistaken assumptions in Bulmash's reasoning, and I've tried to address them in this rebuttal, which has undergone review from some colleagues in the copyright-reform community."

The use of lawyers to go after open source frontally, with copyright and patents, has not worked, so many in the open source community are under the mistaken impression that the war is over and they won.

In March of this year, representatives from more than 100 software companies met to discuss the state of open-source software. Their conclusions are described in a 16-page report, "2007 Open Source Think Tank: The Future of Commercial Open Source," which is free to download (PDF).

There is no clear consensus about the specific reasons that occasionally boost Brazil to the cutting edge of the open source revolution. For us here in the field, facing so many difficulties, ranging from simple misunderstandings to big resource constraints, the international acclaim sounds a bit exaggerated, and at times misinformed.